10IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

EASTERN DIVISION 

RONALD BLOODWORTH, : 

 : 

 Plaintiff, : Case No. 10-cv-1121 

 : 

 v. : JUDGE ALGENON L. MARBLEY 

 : 

DEBORA TIMMERMAN-COOPER, et al., : 

 : Magistrate Judge Norah King 

 Defendants. : 

RONALD BLOODWORTH, : 

 : 

 Plaintiff, : Case No. 10-cv-1122 

 : 

 v. : JUDGE ALGENON L. MARBLEY 

 : 

DEBORA TIMMERMAN-COOPER, et al., : 

 : Magistrate Judge Norah King 

 Defendants. : 

ORDER ADOPTING REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

I. INTRODUCTION 

 These two related actions are both brought by Plaintiff Ronald Bloodworth. Plaintiff 

alleges that employees of Ohio’s London Correctional Institution, where he was formerly an 

inmate, committed various tortious acts and retaliation against him. The first case is numbered 

2:10-cv-1121 (the “1121 Case”) and the second case is numbered 2:10-cv-1122 (the “1122 

Case”). The two cases address different specific allegations of employee misconduct by prison 

staff, but are essentially similar and both arise out of Plaintiff’s incarceration at London 

Correctional Institution. This matter is before the Court on two Reports and Recommendations 

by the magistrate: (1) 1121 Case Doc. 157; and (2) 1122 Case Doc. 114. The magistrate has 

recommended that both cases be dismissed on their merits. Plaintiff has not filed any objections 

Case: 2:10-cv-01122-ALM-NMK Doc #: 123 Filed: 09/04/13 Page: 1 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>
2 

to the magistrate’s Reports and Recommendations, despite having received extensions for that 

purpose. Plaintiff has, however, filed a motion seeking to voluntarily dismiss the cases pursuant 

to Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(a)(1). The Court first addresses Plaintiff’s motion to voluntarily dismiss and 

then decides whether to adopt the Reports and Recommendations of the magistrate. 

II. MOTION TO VOLUNTARILY DISMISS 

 Once a defendant files a motion for summary judgment, a plaintiff must receive approval 

from to Court in order to voluntarily dismiss the action under Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(a)(1). Grover v. 

Eli Lilly and Co., 33 F.3d 716, 718 (6th Cir. 1994). The Court’s approval is required to prevent a 

defendant from suffering legal prejudice. In the Sixth Circuit, courts consider four factors to 

determine whether defendant would incur legal prejudice if plaintiff voluntarily dismissed a case: 

(1) the effort and expense a defendant has undertaken; (2) excessive delay on the part of a 

plaintiff; (3) insufficient explanation for the need to take a dismissal; and (4) whether a motion 

for summary judgment has been filed. Id. 

 In this case, all four factors weigh against allowing Plaintiff to voluntarily dismiss his 

related cases at this late stage. These actions have been pending before this Court for three years 

during which time Defendants have filed nearly a dozen motions, including the two motions for 

summary judgment also disposed of by this order. Plaintiff has filed more than twenty motions 

seeking an extension of time, most of which has been granted, and Plaintiff has repeatedly filed 

late responses despite the extensions. While the Court understands the difficulty an incarcerated 

individual has when prosecuting a complaint pro se, the delays in this case have been excessive. 

 Plaintiff’s explanation for seeking to voluntarily dismiss the case now is that he is in 

segregation within the prison and under mental stress. Again, the Court is sympathetic to those 

challenges, but the timing of Plaintiff’s request to voluntarily dismiss is suspect. Defendants 

Case: 2:10-cv-01122-ALM-NMK Doc #: 123 Filed: 09/04/13 Page: 2 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>
3 

have moved for summary judgment in both cases. The magistrate has issued a Report and 

Recommendation in each case recommending that the cases be dismissed. Plaintiff sought an 

extension of his time to object to those recommendations, but then asked to voluntarily dismiss 

rather than filing any objections. In context, Plaintiff’s motion to voluntarily dismiss is an 

attempt to circumvent the deadline for filing objections, which the magistrate already extended at 

Plaintiff’s request. A voluntary dismissal would be without prejudice and would allow Plaintiff 

to embark on this arduous litigation all over again, despite the fact that the case has arrived at the 

end of the summary judgment stage and the magistrate has recommended the cases be dismissed 

on the merits. Thus, the Court finds that Defendants would suffer legal prejudice if Plaintiff 

were allowed to voluntarily dismiss his claims at this stage. Plaintiff’s Motion to Voluntarily 

Dismiss is, therefore, DENIED. This Court now considers the two Reports and 

Recommendations entered by the magistrate. 

III. ADOPTION OF REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

 On June 20, 2013 the United States Magistrate Judge issued a Report and 

Recommendation in the 1121 case recommending that Defendants' motion for summary 

judgment be granted and this action be dismissed. (1121 Case Doc. 157) On June 11, 2013 the 

United States Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation in the 1122 case 

recommending that Defendants’ motions for summary be granted and this action be dismissed. 

(1122 Case Doc. 114) As discussed above, the parties were specifically advised of their right to 

object to the Report and Recommendation and of the consequences of their failure to do so. 

There has nevertheless been no objection to the Report and Recommendation, despite the grant 

of an extension to file objections. 

Case: 2:10-cv-01122-ALM-NMK Doc #: 123 Filed: 09/04/13 Page: 3 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>
4 

 The Reports and Recommendations (1121 Case Doc. 157 & 1122 Case Doc. 114) are 

hereby ADOPTED and AFFIRMED. The following motions for summary judgment filed by 

Defendants are GRANTED: 1121 Case Doc. 112 & 1122 Case Doc. 95. Defendants’ Motion 

for Summary Judgment on Plaintiff’s First Amendment Claims (1122 Case Doc. 98) is DENIED 

AS MOOT. There are no claims remaining in either case. These actions are hereby 

DISMISSED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 s/ Algenon L. Marbley 

 ALGENON L. MARBLEY 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

 

DATED: September 4, 2013

Case: 2:10-cv-01122-ALM-NMK Doc #: 123 Filed: 09/04/13 Page: 4 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>